This is the original research paper that describes the technique used for real time scene global illumination used in UE4. It's a math heavy read, but graphics geeks my appreciate it.

The gist of it is that they are using clever tricks to enable fast computation of the light effects the whole world is having on each and every pixel by tracing cones in a sparse voxel octree structure that represents the world geometry and enables for fast and efficient storage of light interactions and also for filtering of those interactions up the octree voxel parents (etc etc). Basically they are approximating how light is actually transmitted in the real world.

For a real world example of global illumination in action, get a red object of some sort and hold it a couple of centimeters above a white sheet of paper; the red color will "bleed" into the sheet without the necessity of having direct point lights, as for example in older games, like Doom 3 (and I guess Rage).

It's really fucking cool that this is possible in real time for arbitrary dynamic scenes; I guess we're gonna see impressive shit done with this tech.

For example, the "color bleeding" effect I described would be very difficult to achieve with ray tracing. The technique used here is more similar to radiosity methods used for precomputing static light maps in many mainstream engines even to this day. The difference is that it is completely dynamic now, so one can change both scene and light properties in real time.

i hate to be a Jamerio-ass, but this doesn't make any sense. the whole point of ray tracing is to simulate any lighting in a simple manner, including the light scattering off 'mate' surfaces. it is simulating (tracing) all the paths photons might travel (rays), and diffus[ing] surfaces simply send rays in many directions. this is why all realistic renders use ray-tracing for the base technique. the reason it's not used in real-time 3d rendering is because it is slow, yet all that means is that they used it prior to pre-generate light maps, whether these maps are saved as 2d bitmaps, or volumetric raster data (voxels) or vector maps.

the advances that we are seeing is simply implementing more efficient data structures to store and retrieve the data, as well as to smarter compromising on when it is more efficient to retrieve/load this data or to generate it on the fly. octree is a good example of this, and it has been used for decades. there is no particular clever invention enabling the visuals in this engine, just a lot of hard work on re-programming things to better utilize modern day graphics capabilities (more smart logic done on chip), and most importantly good artists painstakingly assembling layers upon layers of textures and geometry.

it is simulating (tracing) all the paths photons might travel (rays), and diffus[ing] surfaces simply send rays in many directions.

But this is what is actually important. The way ray tracing works is to send a ray through the scenery for every pixel on the screen; when a ray collides with the world, the exact material properties are recorded , and then the ray is reflected (depending on material properties, normal vector etc etc) and bounced off once again into the world. One can repeat this procedure as often as is desired; more iterations result in better image quality.

But this only works well for perfectly shiny surfaces; in order to simulate diffuse materials, one would have to send thousands of rays into the world for every ray/surface collision, as you said. One can easily see that yes, theoretically one could simulate global illumination with ray tracing but it would be insanely slow. Not even close to real time (I'd say it would need hours or even days for a single frame). This is why I said that ray tracing isn't well suited to globally illuminating surfaces in real time.

Now I'm absolutely sure there are some clever optimizations I know nothing about, but the fundamental idea is just not well suited to efficiently computing light irradiation.

Btw, it doesn't matter if the rays are traced from view to world or lights to view; the latter is much more inefficient but all limitations still apply.

Now I'm absolutely sure there are some clever optimizations I know nothing about, but the fundamental idea is just not well suited to efficiently computing light irradiation.

this is where you are fundamentally wrong. the fundamental idea of ray tracing is the only way to compute light 'irradiation'. the entirety of our 3D rendering technology, from lightmaps to stencil shadows to UE4 are 'clever optimizations' on it.

No, this is where you are wrong. Traditional ray tracing specifically traces one additional ray per ray/surface collision (actually three if we account for refraction and shadow). This has absolutely nothing to do with computing global illumination. This has also nothing to do with radiosity (used for computing lightmaps in Quake engines).

If by "our 3d technology is based on ray tracing" you mean to say that ray tracing best approximates the rendering equation you are also wrong; methods like photon mapping do much better.

edit: also, real time ray tracing has been a fact for a long time; i remember seeing one of the first demos many many years ago (and i mean many, like maybe 10, although the demo consisted of just a single sphere above some plane but still; GPUs have made it possible to do ray tracing in the fragment shader in real time. But as you can see, ray traced engines look like shit. Certainly worse than the precomputed static global illumination approximations known as lightmaps. Yes, they have nice reflections and refractions, the things ray tracing is specifically good at, but the lack of GI just makes the scenes feel synthetic and shit).

edit2: also, rereading your original comment, the technique described here has also nothing to do with ray tracing. The usage of octrees is not something revolutionary, as you said they have been used for a long time, it is how they store, filter and use the light interactions for fast per-pixel computation GI.

there is no such thing as 'traditional ray tracing'. ray tracing, algorithmically (arithmetically) is calculating fractions from vectors interacting with geometries. some simplistic algorithm with no reflections (single interaction) is just one example. the most realistic Maya renderer is using the same exact basic algorithm, is just building on top. photon mapping is another variation. so what I mean by "our 3d technology is based on ray tracing" is that all 3D lighting algorithms are based on calculating the way light travels in 3D. if you want to split hairs over terminology, you can address it with all the multi-billion gfx companies happily using the term when describing their best work. for me, this is a waste of time, so this will be my last post.

"We can do that but it's going to be very slow, instead, we'll first cast photons (using the exact same algorithm as ray tracing but in reverse from the light point of view) and see what surface they hit. Then we use that information to compute lighting in first approximation at each surface point. We only follow a new ray if we can have a good idea using a couple of rays (perfect reflection needs only one additional ray). Even then it can be expensive, as the tree of rays expands at a geometric rate. We have often to limit ourself to a maximum depth recursion."

But this only works well for perfectly shiny surfaces; in order to simulate diffuse materials, one would have to send thousands of rays into the world for every ray/surface collision, as you said. One can easily see that yes, theoretically one could simulate global illumination with ray tracing but it would be insanely slow. Not even close to real time (I'd say it would need hours or even days for a single frame). This is why I said that ray tracing isn't well suited to globally illuminating surfaces in real time.

It isn't done because it isn't practical; there are much better suited technique for computing global illumination, as the one outlined in that paper that does it in real time.

The real meat is in the "Interactive Indirect Illumination Using Voxel Cone Tracing" paper. There were other important issues to solve, like being able to do a single-pass voxelization step on the GPU, etc.

And for people interested, the one paper that started it all is the 2008 "Current and Next Generation Parallelism in Games" paper from Jon Olick (did R&D at id Software at that time). This is the paper that introduced SVOs. The paper is huge and has lots of comments. Recommended read.

After that one, several others followed quickly, by the nVidia people and by the GigaVoxels people (one of those now working at nVidia now).

The term SVO first appeared publicly in a Carmack interview from 2008 with PC Perspective.

Unlike RAGE, on consoles, they're shooting for 30 Hz for SP. Console MP and everything PC should be at 60 Hz.

Giving yourself 16 more milliseconds for a single frame means you can do much, much more. And depending on how you spend that extra per-frame compute budget, you can essentially triple your rendering compute budget. :-)

On the PC, there are new things coming out from IHVs that will help id Tech 5 or future engines to perform better :
a) The AMD Partially Resident Textures OpenGL extension AMD_sparse_texture (Carmack confirmed support for it in the new Doom)
b) nVidia's bindless texture extension NV_bindless_texture
c) Intel providing raw GPU texture memory access soon (if not already, didn't check on that)

I haven't looked at the state of OGL for years now; are those extensions tailored towards more efficient data / texture streaming between ram and vram and better memory organization in order to speed up megatexture lod loading?

That's because this is a tiny tech demo on a power pc and the comparisons from idtech 5 are from actual released games on console developed assets developed for hardware MANY times less powerful than what this is running on.

Of course I am - why wouldn't I? I'm not going to humor hypothetical scenarios, with no factual basis. We've probably seen the best of tech5 already, and I'm pretty sure we have only seen the beginning of UE4.

Just because Doom 4 is on idtech5 it does NOT mean idtech 5 will be the same as it was in rage.

Rage is by large outdoor based, so it would not surprise me if the rendering side was geared towards that, if Doom 4 turns out to be more interior based, I would expect some major tweaks to reflect that which will focus on shaders and lighthing.

The doom franchise was build around technology limitations in the early to mid 90's on hardware less powerful than many peoples mobile phone of today. Using that to correlate its future 20 years on is insanely stupid.

The only version you can compare it to is Doom 3 [2004], which again, they clearly based around their engine and it worked superbly for that in terms of a visual experience.

8 years on, idsofware now have an engine which does exteriors rather well, which means, they can pretty much do anything they want.

While you can use the term history to correlate the future, you can also use it base meaning to correctly say ITS IN THE PAST.

Its amazing how many other other outlets you'll try and tarnish before you ever accept you're wrong. And the sad thing with you is, we've already seen that even when you're wrong, you won't admit it.

So misinformed + can never admit he's wrong = a disaster for whatever forum you choose to bless.

Its not as impressive because the Unreal Scene is NOT MEANT to be a playable example, its a cut scene editor example, which takes away control from the player which is why it looks considerably better.

Don't embarass yourself any further (we know you're beyond that in your little ANON computer world) by making stupid lies to mask your initial error, you'll just come off worse.

Tarnish? I'm a huge Mass Effect fan, and I don't let my personal bias get in the way of my professional opinion. I was never insulting bioware, but merely pointing out that they did not use the engine to its potential.

Oh man, that really raged you. A professional opinion is a qualified position. As I stated, even though I'm a big fan of Mass Effect, I'm not about to pretend like they didn't make mistakes. Game developers will never get better, if we can't give them proper criticism - even if we like them.

Yes it is, and when asked to see your qualifications which would permit one to say they have a credible stand for making a "professional opinion" you came back with nothing (as predicted) and talked about about the definition of "professional opinion" (as predicted again) but still nothing from you about your qualifications so we can see how much worth your professional opinion is worth.

As I stated, even though I'm a big fan of Mass Effect

As stated above, you're a bigger fan of yourself which means you'll lie and manipulate your entire belief system to be seen as having something to say on a topic.

This is just more junior psychology to make people think your opinion was a balanced one, the initial one you gave about that unreal demo was grossly inflated and that was ultimately linked to you putting down idsoftware, which is almost a running joke with you and regular readers.

Yes it is, and when asked to see your qualifications which would permit one to say they have a credible stand for making a "professional opinion" you came back with nothing (as predicted) and talked about about the definition of "professional opinion" (as predicted again) but still nothing from you about your qualifications so we can see how much worth your professional opinion is worth.

... the qualifications I'm speaking of are DIRECT EXPERIENCE. I'm giving my review of the experience, and I'm not going to taint a review with bias. Are you completely incapable of reading any sentence as it's actual meaning?

As stated above, you're a bigger fan of yourself which means you'll lie and manipulate your entire belief system to be seen as having something to say on a topic.

You're deflecting. You tried to act as if I was trying to smear Bioware, and this argument has been squashed completely. Now that your fallacy has been exposed, and proven inaccurate to begin with, do you have a real argument?

More nonsense from you, its a map designed to show the matinee editor inside UDK. Whenever you try to run it, it takes control away from the player and plays a fly through animation in a realtime world, so I bypassed their shit and regained full control over the scene and recompiled it.

Its no coincidence they did not want you to have control over it, the performance is dire, I get 60 FPS in most maps, on this map I was getting less than 10 so that shows how badly your comparison about this map looking like your average map is. And that's without characters, physics and a gun battles.

I know that you don't play many games, and your rig is probably shit, but take it from someone who has actually played UE3 games at max settings that the tech demo is nothing special. Many of the parts of that demo that were meant to amaze don't actually have to do with the engine itself, but the graphics themselves are entirely in line with any UE3 game.

DONT blame my computer for high-lighting your stupid and uninformed opinion you palm off to people with such fake confidence that they turn to dust the second they are actually checked by anyone but a layman.

My rig runs plenty of average UE3 PC LEVELS very well.

The fact that this level runs like a dog and control has been locked away from the player clearly shows this is not equivalent to your AVG level using this engine.

If the graphics were ENTIRELY in line with any AVERAGE UE3 game (as you claimed) then why is..

A) This "average level" running like shit while the other "average levels" run fine?
B) Why has someone singled it out as impressive?
C) Why has Epic limited the interaction?
D) Why does it run badly compared to all the other "average" levels?

Again, this demonstration was making use of far more than just graphics - most of which was the fluff involved in scripted events. You could do the same shit under any engine. The underlying graphical ability was never misrepresented by the demonstration, and if you had any experience at all with developing a game, you would understand this.

I get that you're poor, so actually buying a PC capable of running UE3 games is likely out of your league, but for anyone who has actually played UE3 games (both on PC and on console), there was no misrepresentation.

"Again, this demonstration was making use of far more than just graphics.."

The scripted events in this demo had little or no impact on performance. It was the overuse of expensive effects that did it.
Something which you implied was the norm. It isn't.

"The underlying graphical ability was never misrepresented by the demonstration"

No it wasn't, it was misrepresented by YOU saying it was a reflection of the average quality on PC level using the UE3 engine when it clearly was not because the performance levels are DIRE on this level compared to the average levels that run fine.

As for being poor and having crap hardware, you're more than welcome to go to device manager and show us what CPU and GPU you have and post the image back here?

The scripted events in this demo had little or no impact on performance.

No, they had an impact on the visuals, which gives you a false impression of graphics, that is really just attention to detail, as I have already pointed out.

No it wasn't, it was misrepresented by YOU saying it was a reflection of the average quality on PC level using the UE3 engine when it clearly was not because the performance levels are DIRE on this level compared to the average levels that run fine.

Which it is, if you have played even half of the UE3 engine games on the market. Comparing the UE3 average to the minority of games that used the engine for its versatility (and scalability) rather than its raw graphical power is a misrepresentation, and terribly ignorant. No surprise there!

"No, they had an impact on the visuals, which gives you a false impression of graphics, that is really just attention to detail, as I have already pointed out."

The scene is slow because its rammed with too much detail and effects per sq meter, my computer is not lying when its running this level like shit COMPARED to running the other average levels using UE3 engine you talk about perfectly fine.

The fact that Epic locked control away from the player FURTHER highlights this point. Its giving you a SELECTIVE viewpoint, when you run the level in a realtime situation without being locked by the camera, its having to draw and display a lot more.
Its considerably slower than the average UE3.

You have NO IDEA what games I have bought and played and looked at from a gfx pov, so trying to sit there and tell me my computer is shit, and I have not played XYZ (while you've not even run around the level you're talking about) only confirms the fact that you talk shit. I at least asked you what your PC spec was, as usual, you did not respond, basically anything that relies on you posting proof of simple unobtrusive requests to test your credibility turns to shit every single time the real world is referenced.

Whether its asking you to tell the world about your qualifications, so they can see if your opinion if worthy of being defined as "professional".

Or even asking you something simple to post your CPU and GPU combination, its always the same...

You were the one that referenced "AVERAGE" UE3 levels first, so its going to be up to you to provide the basis of comparison beyond your murky implication which continues your usual "imply everything-define nothing" persona cos it allows you to talk like you know what you're talking about without ever having to prove anything.

"It's pretty clear that you haven't played any."

You've not even played the scene you're talking about because its non playable without hacking it because its non representative level of detail which is why they confined it to selective camera angles. And you've not even specified the "GAME" or "LEVEL" you're comparing it to.

I kinda get the feeling the your finite amount of knowledge, fueled by your infinite amount of self worth is going to stall in glorious fashion as you refuse to evolve key points, but who knows. Maybe this time will be different...

So just to conclude...

1) Post the picture inside of the scene you're referring to like I have, preferably from a similar position, which can't be tricked by mirroring or anything else (Google images). That way, when you do that, you'll be be able to show you can provide sufficient analysis to continue and evolve this point.

If you didn't know what I was talking about, why did you say that I was wrong? You have expressed that you disagree with me, so you must clearly believe that the average UE3 game is not representative of that tech demo. There are over 100 games on the engine, so it shouldn't be at all hard for you to point to what YOU believe is an average representation of the UE3 engine.

If you have played even half of the UE3 titles available, this shouldn't be a problem for you. Give me a single UE3 game, that you believe is the average representation of the engine. If you want to admit that you haven't played any of them, that would also be acceptable.

You were wrong because the unreal level you claimed was "representative" of the average UE3 pc game was not even a level.

It was a "scene" overpopulated with geometry and effects that was way over the average level of detail based on the average level of detail I have seen, so while the graphics are in realtime, the game only provides you with select views of the scene, so its practically pre-rendered so you never have seen the full scene unless you hacked it, that's why I asked for a screenshot inside the editor so I can test you further. You folded, cos this is not shit you can bluff or find on Google.

I offered you the opportunity to list the game and level you "CLAIMED" this level of detail was typical in, you once again refused to evolve your point and argument becuase you know where its going to go.

In an attempt to highlight your expertise I have....

1) Asked you for a link to your qualification which give you the right to have a professional opinion.

YOU GAVE NONE

2) I asked you what game you were comparing it to.

YOU GAVE NONE.

3) I asked you what level from that game you compared it to.

YOU GAVE NONE

4) I asked you to post a picture of the level you are talking about from inside the editor to show you have the credentials to continue this conversation?

YOU GAVE NONE

5) I asked you to post a picture of your CPU/GPU combination.

YOU HAVE NONE.

You're the one that that first compared this to an average level from an UE3 PC game, which means its up to you to provide that info.

If you said your car is faster than my ferrari and I asked you what car it is you're comparing to and you said the "average sports car" you would be ridiculed. And this is all you're doing now, you're making a claim and drawing a conclusion from it, but too scared to define your point cos you know where its going to go.

While you think refusing to evolve the point to the point where a conclusion can be made, your continued disruption and failure to comply with basic non intrusive requests says it all.

All of that text, and no reply to the simple question of what you believe to be the average UE3 game? This isn't a hard question, unless you have never played a UE3 game. Do you have an answer, or not?

You've been arguing it just fine so far, without any specific games. I asked you, because you are trying to get specific. I'm fine with that - let's get specific. Please, point to your opinion of an average, and we can discuss it in comparison to the demo. I'm giving you the chance to dictate the discussion, yet you can't give me an example of what you believe to be average. This means either

So it should be you that needs to provide their source of that comparison. I already have the Unreal level to use as a basis of comparison against whatever you come back with.
At the moment, you have NOTHING. No one can see the level you are talking about or even the game. You said it, so define it. Stop trying to skip orders of logic.

You're talking about MY comparison, which you claim to both not know, and also disagree with. If you don't know what I consider to be average, how can you keep claiming that I am wrong? Either your average IS the average (and we're both talking about the same thing), or it isn't. Since you seem to believe that the average is not represented as such, please tell me what you consider the average.

You continue to prove that you have no experience with any UE3 game, so you can't possibly compare a tech demo to the game in practice. It's painfully obvious to everyone who has played almost any UE3 game - even the shitty indie projects.

Attack tech5? Are you now forgetting what we are even talking about? I compared the tech demo to your average UE3 game. Try to keep up. I asked you for what you believe to be average, so we can compare it to the demo. You have yet to name a single game.

Attack tech5? Are you now forgetting what we are even talking about? I compared the tech demo to your average UE3 game.

yes and if you look before the guy posted the unreal video we were talking about idsoftware after you said ""I'm not going to humor hypothetical scenarios, with no factual basis." which was lovely as the game is not even released.http://picturepush.com/public/8508547

Try to keep up. I asked you for what you believe to be average, so we can compare it to the demo. You have yet to name a single game.

STOP LYING!!! - Before you had asked me ANYTHING, you had already said "its looks like your average UE3 PC game".

That was a whole different discussion. I was speaking to someone else, and this entire comparison was just in relation to the demo he posted. You were happy to have this discussion, up until I actually asked you to elaborate your position. I've given you the opportunity to completely dictate the discussion, by pointing to the average, but you are incapable. Just admit it - you have never played any UE3 game, and you haven't even touched the SDK.

I didn't need to, as we both understood what I said to mean the average. Since you want to be specific, please point out a game that you believe to be average. Feel free to pick one out that's below average, just to help your argument! Oh wait, even those would still make you look like a retard.

"Just admit it - you have never played any UE3 game, and you haven't even touched the SDK"

I have a fairly decent knowledge of the editor and how the detail scales in relation to performance.

That's why I knew the level was for cut scenes and why I know its way higher than normal average detail, which is why epic locked it to a cut scene and why you are now so scared you won't even say the name of the game and level you INITIALLY compared it to.

Feel free to gesticulate and pontificate like an emotional primate, appealing to primitive instincts of your spectatorship, instead of addressing cold hard facts in a logical manner. Shows how hard you've lost the argument. Try harder next time, maybe addressing the issue, and you can play with the grown ups.

You didn't actually address anything. I've given you the opportunity to resume his argument, but you seem more interested in just running your mouth. I know that you're probably a little sore after having to leave the thread about Q3 players with your tail between your legs, but don't let it spill over into other threads.

More feces tossing from a branch isn't going to save you from looking like a primate not being able to admit when you're wrong. Why don't you go back to that thread and address the solid facts? That's right, even you can run out of feces. You're just going to strain your colon even more by letting the pain of the humiliation in the other thread spill into other thread. My advice is that you reply on the relevant points clearly stated by Jamerio, otherwise you're just going to keep embarrassing the human race.

I addressed them all, until you left after being proven wrong by multiple people. I'm sure the marketing thread also burned you pretty hard, so you're looking for any way that you can possibly pick a fight. If those threads angered you so much, you could just go back to them, and we could continue where you decided to flee.

That, or you can pick up Jamerio's argument here, since he's abandoned the thread. Whichever will satisfy your butthurt more, or we can even do them all!

No one is falling for your propaganda and history rewriting, especially all the people proving you wrong on every single misdirected straw man argument you've attempted to throw into the wheels of truth. You got burned, tattered and humiliated in all the threads subjects of which I forget to name them by. If those threads angered you so much that you can't even argue about the new things you are totally wrong about, perhaps you should just keep talking about them and embarrass yourself even further on all the new stuff you are so embarrassingly wrong about.

That, or you can actually reply to the points Jamerio has made, since all you have done is name calling and feces tossing. Which coupled with nonexistent thread references makes you look even more deluded and wrong than you probably are, or you can continue talking nonsense!

You forget to name them? I already did that for you. Are you actually planning to take over for jamerio? If so, go ahead and start the argument that you'd like to continue. You're still just throwing out personal attacks, which I'm guessing is all that you actually have here. I don't actually expect you to, because we both know that you're only here because I've thoroughly embarrassed you. If you missed my replies in the other threads, I can bump them for you.

I don't need to take over anything for Jamerio, because you still haven't addressed a single point he made. All you are doing is diverging attention towards phantom arguments you've already lost a billion times and throwing out personal attacks about phantom threads that don't exist. Look, you're even ready to go back and bump those threads in order to diverge attention from how sorrowfully you have failed to address any points in this thread. That is just such a sad display of delusion in light of defeat that I think you will never recover, and claim in the next thread how you've conquered this thread, despite being utterly devastated on every point.

Again, you try to diverge everyone attention from the fact that it is you who failed to address any points brought up by Jamerio. Of course it's predictable I'm not going to address your phantom diversion about threads that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Commiserations on being wrong and too delusional to admit just how wrong you are.

You're the one that compared an up and coming game in 2012/13, based on the merits of a game from 2004 on an engine which clearly dictated the game design due its brave attempt at bringing in core next gen features 18-24 months before everyone else managed it.

You're acting like a developer that has a long history of fucking this up is going to somehow change. The only thing tech5 brought to the table was megatextures, which turn out to be less than impressive, and still full of bugs.

Rage (at least 2.5 million) and Doom 3 have grossed over 5 million sales across 2 games alone. That's more than good.

The average score of an idsoftware game over a 20 year period is probably 8+ out of 10.

Their main guy is in the hall of fame for video games legends and is probably the most respected games programmer in the entire world. Not to mention they produced the best MP FPS game of all time, by a long way which is the only reason this website exist. Are you clinically depressed or something?

Secondly, the rendering in modern engines is now at at such a high level only small advancements are being made in rendering, even then, those advancements are having small impacts on the game world and are often wasted by dire, repetitive, procedural based content.

Which is why carmack is messing around with head displays because he correctly recognizes that the next big jump will be in conjunction with the display unit, not some obscure algorithm/math which does fancy dynamic lighting and adds a bit more eye candy to the game world.

I would gladly swap 25% game engine power for a 3D world that is inspired and fun to play and so would most others.

Are you seriously trying to defend a game with reviews? I suppose you think that WoW is superior, since it's an average 9+ out of 10? Call of Duty, too? We're not even talking about the gameplay - we're talking about the engine. Quake 4 won Gamespot's "Most Aggravating Frame Rate / Best Slideshow" award.

Carmack is messing around with head displays because Zenimax doesn't want id fucking up another game. Why do you think that tech5 won't even be licensed? Why do you think that they just got done with a round of 30 layoffs? Why do you think Timothee Besset just quit?

Are you seriously trying to defend a game with reviews?Err yes, especailly with your history.

I suppose you think that WoW is superior, since it's an average 9+ out of 10?

Its not even the same genre. So no I am not comparing it to a company that makes 1st person shooters.

Call of Duty, too?

Its a matter of opinon, the point is, id don't really make bad enough games to warrant your negativity, that comes from something wrong with you, who knows, maybe you threw your life away to play them and you blame them?.

We're not even talking about the gameplay - we're talking about the engine. Quake 4 won Gamespot's "Most Aggravating Frame Rate / Best Slideshow" award.

Yes and the Doom 3 engine which its based on won a shitload of awards and praise for its innovation. Notice how you forget the other bits?

Carmack is messing around with head displays because Zenimax doesn't want id fucking up another game.

How do you know this? is this more knowledge stemmed from your qualified professional opinion which you're too scared to share with people because it amounts to nothing beyond your deluded impression of yourself? by all means, make a claim then I can check and see about you in the game business and we'll go from there. Anyone with a clue knows the next big advances will be in conjunction with a display unit, this is why 3D films are all the rage, it adds a new dimension you can't obtain without the aid of extra hardware. Who the fuck are you question anyone, let alone carmack??? haha.

Why do you think that tech5 won't even be licensed? Why do you think that they just got done with a round of 30 layoffs? Why do you think Timothee Besset just quit?

Its licesned to partners of Zenimax, every company has layoff's and every company has people that quit. You're trying to attribute things to what you want them to be again. You're quite manipulative like that to anyone who isn't smart enough to see it. The general impression of Rage was its a stunning looking game on the whole. You are well known for your biased opinions regarding idsoftware. That never changes.

You were comparing id software games, not just Quake. You're saying that COD is better than Doom 3, since that's what the reviews say.

It probably is better designed game than Doom 3. Doom 3 is a visual expereince COD could never come close to matching. games are good for a variety of experiences.

Yes and the Doom 3 engine which its based on won a shitload of awards and praise for its innovation. Notice how you forget the other bits?

The engine? No, no it didn't. The game won a few.

The Doom 3 engine won lots of praise for its level of fidelity.

How do you know this?

Based on the fact that they made a statement that they weren't happy about Rage? Or the layoffs? Or the statement that QL was a business failure? Do I need to paint you a picture?

Rage has sold over 2.5 million copies and has an average score of over 8/10 over 50+ reviews http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/942657-rage/index.html that's pretty impressive if you ask me. A lot of devs release games that score and sell less and carry on, so it goes to show you shit happens...

3D films were on the decline since mid-2011. It's never been big for games.

That's becuause the tech is not here yet, in a decline?
Everyone I know chooses to the see the 3D version, the fact that there is something for them to decline from suggests its already wanted enough to be good. Android > Apple, don't mean people are gonna stop buying iphones.

Who the fuck are you question anyone, let alone carmack?

Carmack isn't in charge at id. id is Zenimax's bitch now, and Carmack does what they tell him to do.

So you say... last I heard carmack said the opposite and he said it personally. Gonna have to take that over you.

Its licesned to partners of Zenimax, every company has layoff's and every company has people that quit.

id isn't a big company - 30 members is a lot, especially when they're supposed to be working on Doom 4, and another Rage title.

Do you have proof at how many work there? Secondly, there is a global recession going on, a lot of things are changing.

It probably is better designed game than Doom 3. Doom 3 is a visual expereince COD could never come close to matching. games are good for a variety of experiences.

Visual experience is taken into consideration in a review, so you must believe that COD is a better game than Doom 3.

The Doom 3 engine won lots of praise for its level of fidelity.

Praise? So flip flopping from "a shitload of awards"? It won complaints of being dark, everything looking to be made of plastic, and tons of complaints about performance.

Rage has sold over 2.5 million copies and has an average score of over 8/10 over 50+ reviews

Hey, you know what did even better than that? Call of Duty. Better game? Obviously.

That's becuause the tech is not here yet, in a decline?

You specifically pointed to films, which are already in decline. There has already been some push for 3D in games, and it has done terribly - the tech is already here. Carmack's VR headset really has nothing to do with 3D, though.

So you say... last I heard carmack said the opposite and he said it personally. Gonna have to take that over you.

Visual experience is taken into consideration in a review, so you must believe that COD is a better game than Doom 3.

"I'm happy to play below average gameplay with amazing visuals, than average gamepaly and average visuals"

Praise? So flip flopping from "a shitload of awards"? It won complaints of being dark, everything looking to be made of plastic, and tons of complaints about performance.

Again, you're just focusing on the negative, I'm guessing your life would be scarier than anything in doom 3.

Hey, you know what did even better than that? Call of Duty. Better game? Obviously.

Sales have nothing to do with a good game, I only said that because you implied id had done badly as producers care mostly about sale, 2.5 million sales in this day and age with a pretty decent game is acceptable.

You specifically pointed to films, which are already in decline. There has already been some push for 3D in games, and it has done terribly - the tech is already here. Carmack's VR headset really has nothing to do with 3D, though.

The tech is at its infancy and slow and crap, as usual you take a worse case scenario and present it as a reality. Carmack is ls looking to improve on it, and I bet he does.

So you say... last I heard carmack said the opposite and he said it personally. Gonna have to take that over you.

[citation needed]

You'll get my CIT when I get yours for saying...

"Carmack isn't in charge at id. id is Zenimax's bitch now, and Carmack does what they tell him to do."You said it first, so you post proof first.

I'm happy to play below average gameplay with amazing visuals, than average gamepaly and average visuals

Then you'll also be happy to admit that gameplay is also considered in a review, and that COD is the superior game.

Again, you're just focusing on the negative, I'm guessing your life would be scarier than anything in doom 3.

The overwhelming negative, that tanked the future of the engine - that opened the door for Epic to completely dominate the licensing scene.

Sales have nothing to do with a good game, I only said that because you implied id had done badly as producers care mostly about sale, 2.5 million sales in this day and age with a pretty decent game is acceptable.

I see, so now that your argument using sales has failed, you want to back away from it. No surprise. Would you also like to back away from the review argument? You're losing pretty hard there, too.

You'll get my CIT when I get yours for saying...

Is there any argument that you can actually back up? Stop making me look like a bully that is picking on a kid with down syndrome.

You didn't say that, you said "No response to anything this time".
More lies from you.

As for defeated, I have you so scared to evolve your points you won't even name the name the game and level you were talking about at the start of your hilarious attempt to look informed.http://picturepush.com/public/8506928

You also refused to provide a CIT when asked about Carmack, we have already seen you spread a similar lie here about john Romero, in that thread you were given plenty of opportunities to provide your source, all you did was spam and become unresponsive as you always do when you get schooled.
There's no point in me going down that road again.

Am I really the only one who stopped seeing leaps after 01-02 and thus stopped giving a fuck ?
Most of the games considered beautiful just look bland to me. If something has "highly advanced lighting effects", I just cant see shit. If it's just nicer looking effects, I don't notice them.
That demo reminded me of painkiller with higher resolution textures. That's all I see.

Looks pretty spiffy, I have to say. I think the most interesting aspect of it though isn't necessarily the graphics, (although they are extremely well done, especially during light changes) but rather the simplicity and utter convenience that they strived to provide in the editor. Seriously, they made a code change for the player jump height, ran the game while it was compiling, and as soon as it was finished, the jump height literally changes in-game, in an instant, without having to open or close programs. That's pretty damn amazing, and while I'm no coder myself, I can see how it would save programmers valuable time in the design department. The Kismet interface looks very user-friendly too, at least compared to a lot of design interfaces - it even has the sequences being executed with the animations playing on the lines so you know if links are working correctly or not. Less tearing your hair out, and more actually working on your project. Me likey.

Overall, great looks, but it's far more impressive from a developer aspect, and how it makes things much simpler for aspiring designers.

When I saw the hot code swapping feature in the UE4 demo, I immediately thought of Erlang; there, updating live systems without having to shut them down first is a breeze.

This is because of its actor based model, immutable data structures and share-nothing philosophy. Achieving the same in C/C++ (or any other imperative languages for that matter) is surely possible, but probably much much harder. You can already see how incidental complexity shines through when it comes to resource reloading - every subsystem has to unload all affected resources and then load the new ones; code that has to be rewritten for every distinct subsystem.

I wonder when game programmers will start leaning towards functional programming; things like hot swapping code with new physics (jump height constant), new resources etc etc would be a non-issue then.

youre right about idtech 5. as far as i´m concerned, id technologie can look awesome if you take call of duty. for me faces and hair and stuff don´t need to be much better than that to have a great game. more possibilities (ok, i think i´m missing a Y here) to interact with the environment or better physics with better ingame animations in general is what i want to see. and EPIC games has always failed to deliver that in their games. batman games lately had only crappy physx integration..you run around, map looks nice and lots of stuff in there, but you cannot destroy the monitors or pic up a chair. might as well just play a preset 2d adventure.

Sparring implies there was some resistance.
Every time I evolved the point he folded.

I asked him what his qualifications were to have professional opinion that he claimed he had.

He folded.

I asked him to post his cpu+gpu combination...

He folded

I asked him to list the game and level he initially used to compare it to..

He folded

I asked him to post a picture of the map we were talking about inside the development kit, he folded, and later came back with me not having any experience with the development kit when it was I< that posted the pic from inside the editor as I was more than happy to take go that deep.

He folded.

Any attempt I made to define his lies in relation to the thread and his hilarious lies he folded.
These are not exactly personal requests for big deal information.

In the last year I took the time to highlight some of these... Here are some examples with undeniable proof of his ways...

2011http://www.esreality.com/files/misc/2011/8203...d-liar.swf (click it-its a good read into how he operates-not very well)
(if you click on that .swf you will also see him flat out refuse to post his source when he's been caught-its always the same-Even now if you ask him did Romero say what he claimed, I'm sure he'll tell you he did, but as soon as you ask for the source-welcome to the fun and games).

Now he's claiming Carmack is Zenimax;s bitch, when asked for proof, nothing. Even though the last I heard carmack was saying the opposite. the guy is just angry at idsforware because their games ruined his life.

You will also see in those threads once he is in those positions he'll just spam until he has the last word, until his deluded personality has forgotten about any key issues and his definition of winning his point boils down to having the last word, no matter what the word is.

Which by this time, usually amount to the word "raged".

I only do this because I know his wife comes here and I take great pleasure in exposing what a loser she's signed up to.